2011/6/8 <anthony.shipman@symstream.com>:
> On Wednesday 08 June 2011 17:39, Claudio Freire wrote:
>> Of course optimally executing a plan with limit is a lot different
>> than one without.
>
> I imagined that limit just cuts out a slice of the query results.
> If it can find 80000 rows in 0.5 seconds then I would have thought that
> returning just the first 100 of them should be just as easy.
>
>>
>> Just... why are you sorting by diag_id?
>>
>> I believe you would be better off sorting by timestamp than diag_id,
>> but I don't know what the query is supposed to do.
>
> The timestamp is only almost monotonic. I need to scan the table in slices and
> I use limit and offset to select the slice.
>
> I've forced the query order with some pgsql like:
>
> declare
> query character varying;
> rec record;
> begin
> -- PG 8.3 doesn't have the 'using' syntax nor 'return query execute'
>
> execute 'create temporary table tt on commit drop as ' ||
> 'select diag_id from tdiag ' || v_where;
>
> query = 'select * from tdiag where diag_id in (select * from tt) ' ||
> 'order by diag_id ' || v_limit || ' ' || v_offset;
>
> for rec in execute query loop
> return next rec;
> end loop;
> end;
if you use FOR statement, there should be a problem in using a
implicit cursor - try to set a GUC cursor_tuple_fraction to 1.0.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
>
> --
> Anthony Shipman | Life is the interval
> Anthony.Shipman@symstream.com | between pay days.
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>